[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis



> 
> 
> >>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC  <Paul> writes:
>     VPNC> No, we don't. We have ways of encoding the display name and
>     VPNC> the coments, but *not* the address itself (called the
>     VPNC> "addr-spec"). RFC 822 and 2822 are completely clear on this.
> 
>   Ah, good point.
> 
>     >> 2) we could agree to permit UTF-8 in RFC822_ADDR.
> 
>     VPNC> Doing so and hoping that the Applications Area Directors don't
>     VPNC> barf is like 
> 
>   Fine. Point made.
>   So, we need an identifier that can carry UTF-8, is known to carry
> UTF-8, and isn't ID_KEY_ID.
> 
I hope this does not preclude ID_KEY_ID from carrying UTF-8 in an
opaque way. I think this is what Paul Koning mentioned in an earlier mail.

thanks
mohan

> - --
> ]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
> ]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
> ] mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
> ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Finger me for keys
> 
> iQCVAwUBQGGfVYqHRg3pndX9AQFS0gP/REqyJFEuHwEdd84mjKL7eVu8OZ94VcB3
> QXNT18Tvzt/nGAoxqUbXv6IK11TMTbqC0uqR/kKm/Opuxa4OUNSKmvMUuiujufEe
> fSPZ8LuBzoZe/xX+v6LUQsb4jky7oTxy2jFX6lg6qpc542ZpXrlZsEMYzPJFN/iA
> KPtMeVAsWX0=
> =7eGq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----